Gasoline Prices Weigh On Car Purchase Decisions

Over in Mike's Neighborhood, Mike ran a post about the visit by the Big Three automakers paid to W before his trip to Vietnam. I disagreed with him on a couple points, particularly the significant effects that healthcare costs are having on the companies. However, a survey has come out bolstering his argument about the short-sightedness of the car manufacturers.

The highlights of the survey:

Most Americans expect gasoline prices to rise in the near future and 70% say they're factoring that into their new vehicle purchases...

The recent decline in gasoline prices from highs posted during the summer months isn't dampening interest in hybrid vehicles...

A survey of 1,016 adults polled by telephone showed that nine out of 10 expect gas prices to go up "in the near future."

45% of Americans are more likely to buy a "hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle" than they were six month ago, despite the dip in fuel prices.

Auto makers argue that government standards create artificial targets and that consumers are the best arbitrators of what kinds of vehicles should be offered.

The survey was taken by Opinion Research Corp. and commissioned by the Civil
Society Institute, is the parent organization of 40mpg.org - a group that advocates setting the federal fuel efficiency standard for all passenger cars to 40 miles per gallon - and the Hybrid Owners of America.

So the auto makers aren't listening to what consumers want. While I didn't partake in the survey, my wife and I are planning on putting my old 97 Civic (30-35 mpg) out to pasture (115k miles) and buying a new car early in 2007. We worked out a compromise. We're getting a hybrid (my preference) that's bigger than the Honda (wife's preference): the 2007 Toyota Camry hybrid. We still have to test drive it of course, but at least we've come to terms.

If the Big Three are paying attention, maybe by the time we're ready to retire our 2000 Subaru Outback, they'll have something for us. They would be wise to take a clue from Toyota's Volta which has got SWEET written all over it.

\_/
DED

McCaffrey on Countdown Again. Rangel and the Draft.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey was on Countdown again last night to discuss the disaster that is the program for training the Iraqi military. His tone was a bit more embittered this time. He shot down calls for the paltry increase in troop levels as "nonsense". He cited recruitment problems and a need to "fix" the Army and Marines in order to continue fighting the War on Terror.

OLBERMANN: I'm joined now by retired four-star U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey. Thank you again for your time, sir.

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Yes, hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: If the minimum bar for anybody's solution for the U.S. in Iraq is the training of Iraqis, are you shocked to hear that this late, the training is this bad?

MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, a very good article by Tom Ricks, very professional reporter. It's disappointing. You know, we've had—the whole effort has been grossly underresourced. The U.S. Army and the Marine Corps are stretched thin. They're fighting two wars, 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, 150,000 in Iraq. At the same time, they're trying to build two security institutions, the Afghan national army and police, and the Iraqi.

Tom Ricks is the author of Fiasco, a very damning look at how poorly the situation in Iraq has been handled.

So I think what we're seeing, you know, just right up front, Keith, you can't be an adviser unless you're qualified at your military task. And, oh, by the way, you need to go get 90 days of Arabic, for God's sakes, before you can operate in that environment.

So it's been done on the fly, it's grossly underresourced, we don't have the Iraqis, don't have the equipment they need, light armored vehicles, helicopters, AC-130s. We're going to have to buckle down and resource the war and try and achieve some minimal objectives in the coming 24 months.

OLBERMANN: Do you know, can you assess who, who did it this way, who decided to do this on the cheap, and almost sounding like it's a sidebar, a hobby, a side enterprise to this principal and most important tasks?

MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, I've been banging away on the underresourced aspect of this for two years. I think, you know, (INAUDIBLE) -- if it's $7 billion a month to fight the war, why, for God's sakes, would we think it was unacceptable to pay for 3,000 to 5,000 light armored vehicles, you know, let's say $2 billion, so that the Iraqis could replace us?

Which begs the question, "Just what are we spending that $7 billion per month on?"

So I think, again, Secretary Rumsfeld tried to do this thing on the cheap. You know, the argument was always, Well, look, they may — (INAUDIBLE) end up equipping both sides of a civil war.

You know, another thought, Keith, come to think of it, it's not just equipment or training, it's also the political will, the security forces, to fight for a legitimate government. That's been sadly lacking in the police case. There are factional militias, murderers, and in the case of the army, in many instances, they're really Kurdish troops, peshmerga, or they're Shia, or Sunni, and they're not taking orders from the national government.

Emphasis mine. A foreign government operating without the support of its people, police, and military, while being propped up by the US military? Sounds a bit like Vietnam.

OLBERMANN: The story that Thomas Ricks had yesterday on the three remaining options being outlined by the Pentagon in shorthand as go big, go long, or go home, going long said to be the favorite option, but does not going long, a shift of combat troops to a long-term training and advisory role, presume that the training procedures are not rife with problems, when (INAUDIBLE), they so obviously are rife with problems?

MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, first of all, I think all these options were nonsensical. If they weren't preceded by -- The U.S. Army's $61 billion short on equipment resources, most of our fighting brigades, except those in Afghanistan or Iraq, are basically broken, we're having terrible recruiting problems. We've got to go fix the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to sustain any option in the war on terror.

Rummy would've accused Barry of "not getting it." Not equating Iraq with the War on Terror shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation.

And that hasn't come up, and neither the Baker commission nor out of this leaked JCS reporting. We're not going to leave, that's just not going to happen. We're not going to reinforce. I would vehemently object to bubbling up 20,000 to 40,000 troops in the short run to demonstrate political resolve. That's nonsense. It won't make much of a tactical difference, and we'll end up extending those troops. Some of those troops, Keith, are on their, now, one unit I visited, fifth combat tour.

OLBERMANN: It's extraordinary. It's unbelievable that we're talking in these terms.

Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, also, of course, of MSNBC and NBC News. Always an honor to have you, sir. Thank you.

MCCAFFREY: Good to be with you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: For more on the political implications of U.S. policy in Iraq, such as it is at the moment, we're joined now, as promised, by our own Craig Crawford, also a columnist for "Congressional Quarterly."

Craig, good evening.

CRAIG CRAWFORD: I say, put General McCaffrey in charge.

OLBERMANN: That would be a good idea too.

---

There's talk in Congress about reinstituting the draft. And Democrat Charlie Rangel is the one talking about it. He said Sunday, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft."

Now why does he think this? I have a hard time wrapping my brain around that statement. I would think that W would say, "The more the merrier." Does Rangel believe that the American public would've been up in arms in 2003 over this? I think he's wrong. A majority of Americans supported taking out Saddam on the belief that he had WMD. A draft wouldn't have changed anything. He'd still insist that we stay the course. Didn't Rangel pick up that Bush didn't learn anything from Vietnam other that "We'll succeed unless we quit"?

And the American public believed LBJ when he said that Vietnam was crucial in the fight against Communism. People believed him for several years. The hippies were a minority of dissent. It wasn't until Nixon's second term that the majority of Americans changed their minds. Enough people believed him when he said that he "had a plan to end the Vietnam War," although he didn't. And they re-elected him. And that was with a draft.

No, Mr. Rangel, a draft doesn't change anything. Apparently, the generation that fell victim to the Draft in the 60's & 70's for a war of occupation didn't learn anything and re-elected someone who got their kids into another war of occupation.

\_/
DED

The Musical To End All Musicals

And I thought "Spamalot" was pushing the idea of a musical. This takes the cake, not to mention the chainsaw.

\_/
DED

Beer In Review: Beyond The Pale

It's been a very warm and muggy day today here in Southern New England. While the overcast skies and breezy conditions are typical for November, the mid-60° temperatures are not. I'll take it though, as it means I don't need to have the heat on.

But this warm front from the south is bringing with in something else, a hint of the ocean. While I'm probably a couple dozen miles from the coast (or not), I can smell the sea. It's faint, almost imperceptible, but it's there. And it inspires me to.... drink pale ales.

The Sierra Nevada Brewing Company has been brewing since 1980, long before the microbrew craze of the 1990's. Located in Chico, California, high up in the mountain range it was named after, Ken Grossman created what was to become their flagship beer, the Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.

This pale ale has a clear, light copper color which supports a stable, ample head. The mighty Magnum hops give this beer it's pronounced bitterness, while the Perle hops imbue a slight floral bouquet. The Cascade hops offer just a hint of orange but this ain't no fruity pale ale. It's as solid as the mountains that it's brewed upon. 5.6% ABV.

As one might expect from a brewery in Calfornia, the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company is trying to be as Earth-friendly as possible. The company has re-invested its profits into four 250 kW fuel cells as well as waste heat, CO₂, and energy reclamation equipment. They're firmly committed to recycling, treat their own wastewater, and gives their spent grain, hops, and yeast to local dairy and beer farmers. A great beer and an ecologically responsible company.

The wind's picked up as the storm's come knockin' on our door. The rain is beating against the windows, rendering the overhangs useless. Before the gloomy skies faded to black, the trees swayed back and forth like so many masts on sailing ships on a rough sea. Although it's dark now, gusts of wind roar like waves crashing on the shore.

Smuttynose Brewing lacks Sierra Nevada's high tech eco-friendly operations. They confess to having more in common with Milwaukee's brewers of the 1950's post-war heydays than its contemporary brethren. Over the years, as accolades brought success, the brewery has updated some of its equipment. But it doesn't stop them from making great beer.

Like Sierra Nevada's first creation, Shoals Pale Ale was Smuttynose's flagship beer in 1994. This is a beer that's best had in a pint glass rather than out of the bottle. For reasons that I don't understand, drinking the beer straight the bottle accentuates the hops to the point where this beer drinker feels like he's drinking an authentic IPA, wood cask and all (though Smuttynose does make an IPA). The Chinook hops seem to have more bite than they otherwise would. Maybe it's an illusion brought on by the picture of the weathered island house on the label. I guess IPA fans may do the opposite of my recommendations.

The Cascade hops bring in a hint of citrus, but like Sierra Nevada, the Chinook bittering hops run the show. An ample head rides on slightly cloudy copper body. As you make your way through the glass, the assortment of Pale Brewers and Crystals malts show up after the hops have finished crashing over your tongue. Drink too many of either of these pale ales and your tongue may feel as weathered as the island house the next day. 5.0% ABV.

I had the Shoals Pale Ale recently with barbecued salmon (a rub of curry powder, minced garlic, and ginger with Enova oil), corn, and stuffing. It was an excellent matchup. The Sierra Nevada Pale Ale was the beverage with ocean scallops with peas over pasta in a white cheese blend sauce. Another get match up.

You can't go wrong with either of these pale ales if you like your beers hoppy.

\_/
DED

General McCaffrey on Countdown

Retired General Barry McCaffrey was Olbermann's guest Monday night to discuss Iraq (of course). Regular readers of my blog know that I've cited his views on the situation in Iraq as being extremely telling. The guy doesn't bullshit and I don't believe that there's a Republican out there with the balls to label him "cut and run". He tells it like it is. And, unlike others, he's consistent. And here's the latest.

OLBERMANN: For the practicality of the plans, if any, as promised, I'm joined now by retired four-star Army general Barry McCaffrey.

Thank you for your time tonight, sir.

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Yes, hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: I want to start with the—where we ended with Richard, McCain calling for more troops. Assuming that that's, on face value, a valid proposal, would it make any difference right now, relative to what either is, or almost is, a civil war in Iraq? Or is too much, too many troops too late right now?

MCCAFFREY: Well, I—two things. First of all, it's not feasible. You know, I was just down at Fort Hood, Texas, a week ago. One of the units there is now deploying on its fifth combat tour.

So we could surge to fight the North Koreans, or do some dramatic escalation. But steady state, we've had it. There are 17 brigades there now. We've got to get it down to 10 brigades. I think by Christmas, which can't be done. But we're going to absolutely start a drawdown of troop strength in Iraq.

OLBERMANN: So clearly, the Senator Levin-Senator Biden idea, the advocation of phased withdrawal, that is a political solution, not a military one, their position being that Iraqis would only stand up if they are forced to do so. Does the political one also, though, serve, in this case, as a military solution for Iraq?

MCCAFFREY: Some of this may be inside-the-Beltway politics, Keith, because, you know, at the end of day, we're clearly going to come out of Iraq. The American people have walked away from the war. The capacity Army and Marine Corps and Special Operations Command to sustain it, starting to run out. You know, $61 billion shortfall in Army equipment.

So the question is, how and when. I would prefer to see privately telling the Iraqi government, Here's our phased withdrawal, than doing it publicly. But, you know, at the end of the day, you'll see the Dems pushing that argument, and probably the Baker commission, Lee Hamilton's commission, giving them some, you know, intellectual orchestration to getting out with honor.

OLBERMANN: Yes, the parachute idea. Now, as to what Tony Blair said tonight, advocating one of these ideas that had leaked out of the Iraq Study Group initial findings, asking Syria and Iran to help in Iraq, is there logic that we're missing on the surface here of asking states that sponsor terrorism to, in essence, help stop terrorism next door?

MCCAFFREY: No, I think that's one of the big new ideas that'll come out of this Iraq Study Group. I hope we adopt it. I hope we have direct engagement in both Tehran and Damascus, and with the Turks and with the Saudis. We probably need a permanent, ongoing regional peace discussion hosted by the Saudis or whoever.

But we‘ve got to find a political cap to put over the military effort. We can‘t win it on the ground with U.S. combat troops. We‘ve got to resource the Iraqi security forces so they can engage. Then we got to hope that Maliki and his government have some ability to govern, which is sadly lacking right now. Basically, this administration in Iraq is largely dysfunctional.

OLBERMANN: So sum it up for me at this point, General. A White House-Congress strategy for victory defines victory as what, now?

MCCAFFREY: Well, I wince when I hear the word "victory." What I would hope we'd go for is a stable Iraq under the rule of law, not attacking its neighbors, not building weapons of mass destruction, and not a giant internal threat to its own people. That ought to be achievable.

It would probably take us five or more years of continued presence at some level. We certainly have to build Iraqi security forces that can do the job internally. And we got to start negotiations with Iraq's neighbors, and internally with the factions.

All is not lost, as Fareed Zakaria said, but right now, we're losing.

OLBERMANN: We'll see if that—those statements from Mr. Blair are an auger of things to come in the next few weeks.

Retired Army general Barry McCaffrey, MSNBC military analyst, of course. Always an honor to have you, sir.

MCCAFFREY: Good to be with you, Keith.

Still waiting for the Baker commission's report. I wonder if it will be as free of politics as he claimed it will be.

\_/
DED

Operation: Mindcrime

Queensrÿche's 1988 album, Operation: Mindcrime was the best concept album of the 80's. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, this was the album that preceded Empire, from whence the song "Silent Lucidity" arose. You know, the song that marketing sold to AOR radio dubbing Queensrÿche as the next Pink Floyd. Being a fan of both bands, I can assure you that was a load of crap. But that's the music industry for you.

Operation: Mindcrime told the story of Nikki, a young man disillusioned by the crap being pawned off as the American dream. Remember the mid to late 80's? Corruption in government, corporations taking control, religious leaders getting caught in sex scandals, and a complicit news media (sound familiar?). He meets Dr. X who takes Nikki in and explains to him how he can make a difference. After a series of addictive psychotropic drugs and brainwashing, Dr. X turns Nikki into an assassin and revolutionary leader.

In between assassinations, Nikki is visited by Sister Mary, a runaway turned hooker who is "saved" from the streets by Father William, an associate of Dr. X. As part of Nikki's conversion, he's addicted to the drugs that Dr. X fed him. Sister Mary provides Nikki with his daily dosage while he waits for Dr. X to call with his next assignment.

One day, Dr. X decides that Mary and the priest are a risk and orders Nikki to kill them. Nikki attempts to carry out his orders, but he realizes that he has strong feelings for Mary. These feelings lock horns with Dr. X's conditioning and the ensuing struggle tears Nikki apart.

By the end of the album, Nikki is straitjacketed in a hospital, trapped in a catatonic state. Mary is dead but Nikki doesn't know if he's responsible. There are huge gaps in his memory. He can't remember yesterday. He just remembers doing what they told him.

Operation: Mindcrime 2 picks up 18 years later, just as OM2 follows OM1. Nikki has been released from prison and discovers that not much has changed in America. The revolution is dead. As he returns to a life of crime, other memories start coming back to him. He's haunted by Mary's death and Dr. X is to blame. Nikki tracks down Dr. X to exact his revenge.

But revenge doesn't turn out to be so sweet. Nikki looks upon his life and wonders if he's nothing more than a murderer. Whether killing in the name of revolution or revenge, it's still killing. He spirals into depression and reverts to heavy drug use to kill the pain. Mary's ghost comes to him and he longs to be with her once again.

OM1 is better than OM2. The story and music are vibrant. The songs are alive and the emotions of the characters smack right into you. Each song is a chapter in the story. OM2 starts off well but over the last few tracks, Nikki wallows around in so much misery that it drags. There's not as much to the story in OM2 and it comes across. The story would've come across as much tighter if the album had a few less tracks. It's growing on me thorugh.

The Operation: Mindcrime saga can be said to be all about finding purpose in one's life. One can choose from a myriad set of ways to rise to fame, fortune, and power, but none of them truly matter compared to love. This may sound trite, or overly simplistic, but the simplest answers are often the truth.

Queensrÿche are currently touring in support of OM2. In concert, they're playing both albums in their entirety, over 2 hours worth of music. And, if you're lucky, they'll even throw out a few songs for an encore. I went with several friends to see them at the old Oakdale Theater in Wallingford. We all seemed to be a bit skeptical as to how it would come across live, but, except for the opening number (which was a bit rough. Soundcheck anyone?), it was great! They've got video and on stage acting to flesh out the scenes in the songs. But at no point do the sights upstage the sounds. The music is what drives this show. No trends, gimmicks, or stereotypes. Just good music that just so happens to be metal.

Update: Thanks to Mike for pointing me in the direction of this more in-depth review of the show I was at. Definitely worth reading.

\_/
DED

Neo-Greens

Now that the elections are over and the robocalls have finally stopped and my mailbox is no longer full of glossy ads shilling for candidates (and shameless negative ones equating voting for particular candidates with the end of the world), I can move on with my life. Well, hopefully.

One of my life long goals is to be as green as I can, without resorting to living in cave eating nuts and berries. My wildly optimistic dreams of utilizing my chemical engineering degree to apply technology to industry to make it greener was ahead of its time, and thus dashed against the rocks of Reality. But now I see that, the rest of the world, and even some Americans, is doing just that. Actually they've been doing it for several years now. Maybe there will be a spot for me when the kids are in school and I have to go back to work full time.

In the May issue of Wired, there were a couple articles about neo-greens. What the hell are neo greens? Well, consider the old greenies to be the hippies of yore: preachers of doom and gloom and wearers of hemp clothes who offered no solutions to environmental problems except consumer abstinence and commune shacks. Not very appealing. The neo-greens (yeah, labels suck but they're a fact of our culture) look for market driven solutions. They'll use technology to make their machines cleaner, hold off on the pesticides to make their food healthier, recycle everything and reuse it to make clothing and furniture. Sustainable agriculture, forestry, and fishing are replacing brute force and "slash and burn" and driftnetting. Organizations like the Nature Conservancy strive to build proverbial bridges between preserving ecosystems and utilizing their resources for local populations, whether they be in the Amazon or Iowa.

Al Gore (Give him a break already will ya!), besides promoting his book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, heads an investment fund based on the principles of sustainability. With David Blood, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, on board, he's serious about making this work.

Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana, wants to put the state's vast coal reserves into use to lessen our dependency on foreign oil. Now before you get your knickers in a bunch, FuelCell Inc. of Danbury just announced a contract with the government to utilize coal in fuel cells. The process boasts an efficiency of 50% (as opposed to 35% of current coal burning tech) and would capture 90% of carbon emissions. For the record, your car doesn't capture any carbon. Schweitzer also wants to add farm subsidies to alt-energy crops like soybean, safflower, camelina, and canola for biodiesel fuel.

And Douglas Durst, co-president of the Durst Organination, is building environmentally friendly skyscrapers in Manhattan. The new Bank of America Tower at Bryant Park is the current example. Making use of recycled materials, insulated glass, fresh air (as opposed to the recycled air most office buildings use and thus make people sick), rain and treated waste water (on-site), smart lights and LED's, and a thermal storage system, these new skyscrapers will advance green building technologies in our cities with hopes of it trickling down to big box stores in suburbia.

It's all so downright sunny that I can forget Bush is in the White House for awhile.

\_/
DED

How It All Turned Out

Well, you all know that Lieberman retained his Senate seat by approximately 100,000 votes (10%). Not only do we have 6 more years of that smug, arrogant asshole, but he's got more clout than ever. Both sides will try to woo him with offers of committee chairs. The only thing that will prevent that from happening is if the remaining contested Senate seats go one way or the other. Then both parties might just ignore him.

Rell won the right to stay as governor for a full term. Apparently CT voters don't blame her for Rowland's corruption. My choice, Cliff Thornton finished 3rd with 0.85% of the vote, not much better than the Concerned Citizens (Constitutional Theocracy) Party with 0.5%.

The big surprise was that Chris Murphy beat 12-term champ Nancy Johnson by a respectable margin (approx. 55%-45%). Will the 71-year old Johnson retire to a quiet life of grandmotherhood? Will the 33-year old Congressman-elect not suck? I don't know the answer to these questions but I'll be watching.

In the state races, Judith Freedman won re-election to her Senate seat by a 56-44 margin. No surprise there.

The surprise came in the House. Bartlett beat Gallagher, 54%-46% (588 votes), so now the seat swings to the Democrats. It's amazing to me because Gallagher won the lawn sign race by at least a 2:1 margin. I'm happy for Bartlett as he's a nice guy. Although I didn't vote for him, it was because of his party, not anything about him personally. I hope that his presence in Hartford will be a positive one, though being a freshman, I'm not sure if he'll have much pull.

In the national races, the Democrats made big gains in the House and the Senate is too close to call. While I'm glad that Hastert will no longer be the SotH, I really hope that Pelosi doesn't get the nod to be the next one, though everyone says she will. I'm not sold on her effectiveness as a leader (though Californians are) and I worry that her reign will be marked by a backlash in '08 that'll send us back to the right. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

\_/
DED

Who I Voted For

Senate: Ned Lamont (D).

Anyone who's read my blog, or my comments on other blogs, or listens to me rant about politics, knows that I've always hated Lieberman for reasons I don't wish to repeat for the millionth time. I wanted to vote for Ralph Ferucci of the Green Party but since we don't have instant runoff elections, I had to give my vote to Ned.

Representative: Chris Murphy (D).

With no third party candidate to choose from in this race, I had to choose either a taxing Democrat or a Constitution usurping Republican. It's a shame, but I had to run the risk of higher taxes. Johnson is normally a moderate Republican, but her support of W on Iraq and voting in support of the Domestic Spying Program and the Military Commissions Act makes me ill.

Governor: Cliff Thornton (Green Party).

If we had instant runoff elections, Rell (R), the incumbent, would've received my second vote. I realize that Cliff doesn't stand a chance, but I like his platform the most. Rell has a huge lead in the polls so she doesn't need my vote. While I hope that she beats her main challenger, DeStefano, I don't see Rell doing that much better a job than him so I'm not compelled to vote for her as I was Ned in the Senate.

State Senator: Judith Freedman (R).

Her opponent wasn't that bad. Her previous opponent was great, but lost. Freedman got my vote because CT's legislature already has too many Democrats and is almost veto proof.

State Representative: Phil Gallagher (R).

It was a tough choice between him and Jason Bartlett. A letter to the editor by one of the local PTA psychos in favor of Bartlett turned my stomach so I cast my vote for Gallagher. As in the state senate, CT already has too many Democrats. I met Bartlett and found him to be a nice guy. Gallagher came around to visit but my wife and I were in the middle of hanging a cabinet in our bathroom so neither one of us could answer the door.

I won't bore you with the other positions.

Notice a pattern to my voting? I voted for Democrats at the national level because I felt that DC was too far to the right. I voted for Republicans at the state level (except for Cliff) because Hartford, our capitol, is too far to the left. I guess we'll find out tomorrow how it all turned out.

\_/
DED

Hubble's Life Extended

Fortunately, NASA's current administrator, Mike Griffin, has a bit more common sense to him than his predecessor. Maybe it's because he's an aerospace engineer and not an accountant. Anyway, the Hubble Space Telescope will be serviced so that it's lifespan can be extended another 15 years beyond its current demise date of 2008. Hubble was launched in 1990. Servicing the telescope means that its lifespan will be over 30 years. From a fiscal standpoint, that's big. While cost overruns pushed Hubble's expenditure up to $1.75 billion, an astronomical figure if you'll pardon the pun, it's nothing compared to the war in Iraq. We spend that much money in about 10 days. From what I've seen, we've certainly gotten more performance out of Hubble than we have out of Iraq.

The Hubble has provided us with fantastic images of the universe that we're a part of. It confirmed the existence of black holes and helped to decipher quasars. It brought us close-ups of comet Shoemaker-Levy slamming into Jupiter and auroras on Saturn. It has rendered images of distant galaxies, as well as clusters of galaxies, in unprecedented clarity. It has revolutionized astronomy and broadened our understanding of the cosmos.

I can't provide coverage here for all of the fantastic images taken by Hubble. If you're curious, check out the Hubble's website for more of its discoveries.

\_/
DED